Skip to main content

Germany’s social media law may force Facebook to be judge, jury, and executioner of free speech

The German government’s controversial new law, which aims to crack down on hate speech on internet platforms, comes into force today (Oct 1). But while it seems like a progressive step towards combatting this issue, there are concerns that the move could lead to excessive censorship due to the level of fines social media platforms face.

Passed earlier this summer, the law will financially penalize social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, if they don’t remove hate speech—as per its definition in Germany’s current criminal code—within 24 hours. They will be allowed up to a week to decide for comments that don’t fall into the blatant hate speech category. The top fine for not deleting hate speech within 24 hours is €50 million ($59 million)—though that would be for repeatedly breaking the law, not for individual cases.

The hope is that the prospect of eye-watering fines will force the social media giants to tackle the problem, something they promised and have spectacularly failed to do in Germany. Justice Minister Heiko Mass said in June that “online platforms are not taking adequate action. Our experience has clearly shown that without political pressure, the social networks will unfortunately not budge,”

However, journalists, lawyers, and free-speech advocates have been voicing their concerns about the new law for months. They say that, to avoid fines, Facebook and others will err on the side of caution and just delete swathes of comments, including ones that are not illegal. They worry that social media platforms are being given the power to police and effectively shut down people’s right to free opinion and free speech in Germany.

The German Journalists Association (DJV) is calling on journalists and media organizations to start documenting all deletions of their posts on social media as of today. “The borders of free speech must not be allowed to be drawn by profit-driven businesses,” said DJV chairman Frank Überall in a recent statement.

Reporters Without Borders also expressed their strong opposition to the law when it was drafted in May, saying it would “contribute to the trend to privatize censorship by delegating the duties of judges to commercial online platforms… as if the internet giants can replace independent and impartial courts.”

Joachim Steinhöfel, a media attorney in Germany, told Quartz there was “no reason for this law, as there are no new penal codes in the regulation.” The huge penalties are completely out of proportion compared to those faced by traditional media in Germany, he says. The maximum penalty imposed on German print, television or radio for airing or printing illegal content is €250,000.

“Social media is a hub for third parties,” he said. “Even prior to this new law, social media was not a law free-zone. Facebook, Twitter et. al. are liable, by civil and criminal law, from the moment they become aware of the content.”

While Steinhöfel agrees that the state needs to do something to make Facebook take responsibility for the proliferation of hate speech on their platforms, he says ultimately it’s the legal system’s responsibility—and it can and has to deal with it.

Quartz http://ift.tt/2xP92Iw October 01, 2017 at 10:40AM

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Explaining models with Triplot, part 1

[This article was first published on R in ResponsibleML on Medium , and kindly contributed to R-bloggers ]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here ) Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't. Explaining models with triplot, part 1 tl;dr Explaining black box models built on correlated features may prove difficult and provide misleading results. R package triplot , part of the DrWhy.AI project, is aiming at facilitating the process of explaining the importance of the whole group of variables, thus solving the problem of correlated features. Calculating the importance of explanatory variables is one of the main tasks of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). There are a lot of tools at our disposal that helps us with that, like Feature Importance or Shapley values, to name a few. All these methods calculate individual feature importance for each variable separately. The problem arises when features used ...

The con behind every wedding

With her marriage on the rocks, one writer struggles to reconcile her cynicism about happily-ever-after as her own children rush to tie the knot A lavish wedding, a couple in love; romance was in the air, as it should be when two people are getting married. But on the top table, the mothers of the happy pair were bonding over their imminent plans for … divorce. That story was told to me by the mother of the bride. The wedding in question was two summers ago: she is now divorced, and the bridegroom’s parents are separated. “We couldn’t but be aware of the crushing irony of the situation,” said my friend. “There we were, celebrating our children’s marriage, while plotting our own escapes from relationships that had long ago gone sour, and had probably been held together by our children. Now they were off to start their lives together, we could be off, too – on our own, or in search of new partners.” Continue reading... The Guardian http://ift.tt/2xZTguV October 07, 2017 at 09:00AM